Immune System and Cancer
Numerous studies support the importance of the differential presence of immune system components in cancer progression (1) (Jochems et al., Exp Biol Med, 236(5): 567-579 (2011)). Clinical data suggest that high densities of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are linked to improved clinical outcome (2) (Mlecnik et al., Cancer Metastasis Rev.; 30: 5-12, (2011)). The correlation between a robust lymphocyte infiltration and patient survival has been reported in various types of cancer, including melanoma, ovarian, head and neck, breast, urothelial, colorectal, lung, hepatocellular, gallbladder, and esophageal cancer (3) (Angell et al., Current Opinion in Immunology, 25:1-7, (2013)). Tumor immune infiltrates include macrophages, dendritic cells (DC), mast cells, natural killer (NK) cells, naïve and memory lymphocytes, B cells and effector T cells (T lymphocytes), primarily responsible for the recognition of antigens expressed by tumor cells and subsequent destruction of the tumor cells by cytotoxic T cells.
Despite presentation of antigens by cancer cells and the presence of immune cells that could potentially react against tumor cells, in many cases the immune system does not get activated or is affirmatively suppressed. Key to this phenomenon is the ability of tumors to protect themselves from immune response by coercing cells of the immune system to inhibit other cells of the immune system. Tumors develop a number of immunomodulatory mechanisms to evade antitumor immune responses. For example, tumor cells secrete immune inhibitory cytokines (such as TGF-β) or induce immune cells, such as CD4+ T regulatory cells and macrophages, in tumor lesions to secrete these cytokines. Tumors have also the ability to bias CD4+ T cells to express the regulatory phenotype. The overall result is impaired T-cell responses and induction of apoptosis or reduced anti-tumor immune capacity of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells. Additionally, tumor-associated altered expression of MHC class I on the surface of tumor cells makes them ‘invisible’ to the immune response (4) (Garrido et al. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 59(10), 1601-1606 (2010)). Inhibition of antigen-presenting functions and dendritic cell (DC) additionally contributes to the evasion of anti-tumor immunity (5) (Gerlini et al. Am. J. Pathol. 165(6), 1853-1863 (2004)).
Moreover, the local immunosuppressive nature of the tumor microenvironment, along with immune editing, can lead to the escape of cancer cell subpopulations that do not express the target antigens. Thus, finding an approach that would promote the preservation and/or restoration of anti-tumor activities of the immune system would be of considerable therapeutic benefit.
Immune checkpoints have been implicated in the tumor-mediated downregulation of anti-tumor immunity and used as therapeutic targets. It has been demonstrated that T cell dysfunction occurs concurrently with an induced expression of the inhibitory receptors, CTLA-4 and programmed death 1 polypeptide (PD-1), members of the CD28 family receptors. PD-1 is an inhibitory member of the CD28 family of receptors that in addition to PD-1 includes CD28, CTLA-4, ICOS and BTLA. However, while promise regarding the use of immunotherapy in the treatment of melanoma has been underscored by the clinical use and even regulatory approval of anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) and anti-PD-1 drugs (for example pembrolizumab and nivolumab) the response of patients to these immunotherapies has been limited. Recent clinical trials, focused on blocking these inhibitory signals in T cells (e.g., CTLA-4, PD-1, and the ligand of PD-1 PD-L1), have shown that reversing T cell suppression is critical for successful immunotherapy (6, 7) (Sharma et al., Science 348(6230), 56-61 (2015); Topalian et al., Curr Opin Immunol. 24(2), 202-217 (2012)). These observations highlight the need for development of novel therapeutic approaches for harnessing the immune system against cancer.
Poxviruses
Poxviruses, such as engineered vaccinia viruses, are in the forefront as oncolytic therapy for metastatic cancers (8) (Kirn et al., Nature Review Cancer 9, 64-71 (2009)). Vaccinia viruses are large DNA viruses, which have a rapid life cycle and efficient hematogenous spread to distant tissues (9) (Moss, In Fields Virology (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007), pp. 2905-2946). Poxviruses are well-suited as vectors to express multiple transgenes in cancer cells and thus to enhance therapeutic efficacy (10) (Breitbach et al., Current pharmaceutical biotechnology 13, 1768-1772 (2012)). Preclinical studies and clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy of using oncolytic vaccinia viruses and other poxviruses for treatment of advanced cancers refractory to conventional therapy (11-13) (Park et al., Lacent Oncol 9, 533-542 (2008); Kim et al., PLoS Med 4, e353 (2007); Thorne et al., J Clin Invest 117, 3350-3358 (2007)). Poxvirus-based oncolytic therapy has the advantage of killing cancer cells through the combination of cell lysis, apoptosis, and necrosis. It also triggers innate immune sensing pathway that facilitates the recruitment of immune cells to the tumors and the development of anti-tumor adaptive immune responses. The current oncolytic vaccinia strains in clinical trials (JX-594, for example) use wild-type vaccinia with deletion of thymidine kinase to enhance tumor selectivity, and with expression of transgenes such as granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) to stimulate immune responses (10) (Breitbach et al., Curr Pharm Biotechnol 13, 1768-1772 (2012)). Many studies have shown however that wild-type vaccinia has immune suppressive effects on antigen presenting cells (APCs) (14-17) (Engelmayer et al., J Immunol 163, 6762-6768 (1999); Jenne et al., Gene therapy 7, 1575-1583 (2000); P. Li et al., J Immunol 175, 6481-6488 (2005); Deng et al., J Virol 80, 9977-9987 (2006)), and thus adds to the immunosuppressive and immunoevasive effects of tumors themselves. By contrast, modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA), a highly attenuated vaccinia stain has moderate immune activating effects (18, 19) (Drillien et al., J Gen Virol 85, 2167-75 (2004); Dai et al., PLoS Pathog 10(4), e1003989 (2014).
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) is a highly attenuated vaccinia strain that is an important vaccine vector for infectious diseases and cancers. MVA was derived from vaccinia strain through more than 570 passages in chicken embryonic fibroblasts. MVA has a 31-kb deletion of the parental vaccinia genome and is non-replicative in most of mammalian cells. MVA was used in more than 120,000 people during WHO-sponsored smallpox vaccination, and was shown to be very safe for human use. Because of its safety and its ability to express foreign antigens, MVA has been investigated as a vaccine vector against HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, influenza, coronavirus, and CMV, as well as cancers (20-25) (Sutter et al., Current drug targets. Infectious disorders 3, 263-271 (2003); Gomez et al., Curr Gene Ther 8, 97-120 (2008); Gomez et al., Curr Gene Ther 11, 189-217 (2011); Goepfert et al., J Infect Dis 203, 610-619 (2011); Wyatt et al., Virology 372, 260-272 (2008); Garcia et al., Vaccine 29, 8309-8316 (2011)).
The investigation of MVA as cancer therapeutics has so far been limited to its use as a vaccine vector to express tumor antigens (26, 27) (Tagliamonte et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother 10, 3332-3346 (2014); Verardi et al., Hum Vaccin Immunother 8, 961-970 (2012)). Various tumor antigens have been expressed by MVA-based vectors, and some recombinant viruses are in various stages of clinical trials. For example, MVA-PSA-PAP expresses both prostate specific antigen (PSA) and prostate acid phosphatase (PAP) is in clinical trials for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. The recombinant virus MVA-brachyury-TRICOM expressing tumor antigen brachyury and T cell co-stimulatory molecules is also in clinical trials for patients with metastatic cancers. The recombinant virus MVA-p53 expressing p53 tumor suppressor, also in clinical trials, has been shown to be safe. Other tumor antigens that have been targeted include Her2, hMUC-1, TWIST, etc.
Although MVA is highly attenuated and moderately immunostimulatory, it retains multiple immune suppressive viral genes, including a key virulence factor, E3. MVAΔE3L, a recombinant MVA virus further attenuated by deletion of the vaccinia virulent factor E3, is unable to replicate in primary chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEFs), but retains its replication capacity in baby hamster kidney BHK-21 cells (28) (Hornemann et al., J Virol 77(15), 8394-07 (2003). MVAΔE3L is capable of replicating viral DNA genomes in CEFs and is deficient in viral late protein synthesis (28) (Hornemann et al., J Virol 77(15), 8394-07 (2003). It also induces apoptosis in CEF (28) (Hornemann et al., J Virol 77(15), 8394-07 (2003)). MVAΔE3L infection of HeLa cells had similar effects, with impaired viral replication, viral late gene transcription and translation (29) (Ludwig et al., J Virol 79(4), 2584-2596 (2005)). MVAΔE3L also induces apoptosis in HeLa cells, possibly through activating the mitochondrial pathway (29) (Ludwig et al., J Virol 79(4), 2584-2596 (2005)). dsRNA are produced during intermediate gene transcription, which can lead to the activation of 2′-5′-oligoadenylate synthase/RNase L and Protein Kinase R (PKR). In PKR-deficient MEFs, MVAΔE3L gains its ability to express intermediate and late proteins ((29) (Ludwig et al., J Virol 79(4), 2584-2596 (2005)).
One study suggests that pro-apoptotic protein Noxa plays a role in MVAΔE3L apoptosis induction (30) (Fischer et al., Cell Death Differ 13, 109-118 (2006)). Although an early study showed that MVAΔE3L induces higher levels of type I IFN in CEFs than MVA, the exact mechanism was not fully elucidated (28) (Hornemann et al., J Virol 77(15), 8394-07 (2003).
One MVAΔE3L has been described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,049,145 incorporated by reference. It is infection competent but nonreplicative in most mammalian cells including mouse and human.
This disclosure focuses on the intratumoral delivery of MVA or MVAΔE3L as anticancer immunotherapeutic agents. It was hoped that intratumoral delivery of MVA or MVAΔE3L would elicit innate immune responses from tumor infiltrating immune cells (e.g. leukocytes), tumor cells, and tumor associated stromal cells, and lead to induction of type I IFN and proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, which would result in the alteration of the tumor immune suppressive microenvironment.
The recent discovery of tumor neoantigens in various solid tumors indicates that solid tumors harbor unique neoantigens that usually differ from person to person (31, 32) (Castle et al., Cancer Res 72, 1081-1091 (2012); Schumacher et al., Science 348, 69-74 (2015) The recombinant viruses disclosed in this invention do not work by expressing tumor antigens. Intratumoral delivery of the present recombinant MVA viruses allows efficient cross-presentation of tumor neoantigens and generation of anti-tumor adaptive immunity within the tumors (and also extending systemically), and therefore lead to “in situ cancer vaccination” utilizing tumor differentiation antigens and neoantigens expressed by the tumor cells in mounting an immune response against the tumor.
Despite the presence of neoantigens generated by somatic mutations within tumors, the functions of tumor antigen-specific T cells are often held in check by multiple inhibitory mechanisms (33) (Mellman et al., Nature 480, 480-489 (2011)). For example, the up-regulation of cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) on activated T cells can compete with T cell co-stimulator CD28 to interact with CD80 (B71)/CD86 (B7.2) on dendritic cells (DCs), and thereby inhibit T cell activation and proliferation. CTLA-4 is also expressed on regulatory T (Treg) cells and plays an important role in mediating the inhibitory function of Tregs (34, 35) (Wing et al., Science 322, 271-275 (2008); Peggs, et al., J Exp Med 206, 1717-1725 (2009)). In addition, the expression of PD-L/PD-L2 on tumor cells can lead to the activation of the inhibitory receptor of the CD28 family, PD-1, leading to T cell exhaustion. Immunotherapy utilizing antibodies against inhibitory receptors, such as CTLA-4 and programmed death 1 polypeptide (PD-1), have shown remarkable preclinical activities in animal studies and clinical responses in patients with metastatic cancers, and have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, as well as renal cell carcinoma (6, 36-39)(Leach et al., Science 271, 1734-1746 (1996); Hodi et al., NEJM 363, 711-723 (2010); Robert et al., NEJM 364, 2517-2526 (2011); Topalian et al., Cancer Cell 27, 450-461 (2012); Sharma et al., Science 348(6230), 56-61 (2015))
Melanoma
Melanoma, one of the deadliest cancers, is the fastest growing cancer in the US and worldwide. Its incidence has increased by 50% among young Caucasian women since 1980, primarily due to excess sun exposure and the use of tanning beds. According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 78,000 people in the US will be diagnosed with melanoma in 2015 and almost 10,000 people (or one person per hour) will die from melanoma. In most cases, advanced melanoma is resistant to conventional therapies, including chemotherapy and radiation. As a result, people with metastatic melanoma have a very poor prognosis, with a life expectancy of only 6 to 10 months. The discovery that about 50% of melanomas have mutations in BRAF (a key tumor-promoting gene) opened the door for targeted therapy in this disease. Early clinical trials with BRAF inhibitors showed remarkable, but unfortunately not sustainable, responses in patients with melanomas with BRAF mutations. Therefore, alternative treatment strategies for these patients, as well as others with melanoma without BRAF mutations, are urgently needed.
Human pathological data indicate that the presence of T-cell infiltrates within melanoma lesions correlates positively with longer patient survival (40) (Oble et al. Cancer Immun. 9, 3 (2009)). The importance of the immune system in protection against melanoma is further supported by partial success of immunotherapies, such as the immune activators IFN-α2b and IL-2 (41) (Lacy et al. Expert Rev Dermatol 7(1):51-68 (2012)) as well as the unprecedented clinical responses of patients with metastatic melanoma to immune checkpoint therapy, including anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 either agent alone or in combination therapy (6, 7, 37, 42-45) (Sharma and Allison, Science 348(6230), 56-61 (2015); Hodi et al., NEJM 363(8), 711-723 (2010); Wolchok et al., Lancet Oncol. 11(6), 155-164 (2010); Topalian et al., NEJM 366(26), 2443-2454 (2012); Wolchok et al., NEJM 369(2), 122-133 (2013); Hamid et al., NEJM 369(2), 134-144 (2013); Tumeh et al., Nature 515(7528), 568-571 (2014). However, many patients fail to respond to immune checkpoint blockade therapy alone. The addition of virotherapy might overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade, which is supported by animal tumor models (46) (Zamarin et al., Sci Transl Med 6(226), 2014).
Type I IFN and the Cytosolic DNA-Sensing Pathway in Tumor Immunity.
Type I IFN plays important roles in host antitumor immunity (47) (Fuertes et al., Trends Immunol 34, 67-73 (2013)). IFNAR1-deficient mice are more susceptible to develop tumors after implantation of tumor cells; Spontaneous tumor-specific T cell priming is also defective in IFNAR1-deficient mice (48, 49) (Diamond et al., J Exp Med 208, 1989-2003 (2011); Fuertes et al., J Exp Med 208, 2005-2016 (2011)). More recent studies have shown that the cytosolic DNA-sensing pathway is important in the innate immune sensing of tumor-derived DNA, which leads to the development of antitumor CD8+ T cell immunity (50) (Woo et al., Immunity 41, 830-842 (2014)). This pathway also plays a role in radiation-induced antitumor immunity (51) (Deng et al., Immunity 41, 843-852 (2014)). Although spontaneous anti-tumor T cell responses can be detected in patients with cancers, cancers eventually overcome host antitumor immunity in most patients. Novel strategies to alter the tumor immune suppressive microenvironment would be beneficial for cancer therapy.